Computer Science vs Electrical Engineering

[Anonymous No.11861811]

Hey guys I am thinking about a major to go for and I have narrowed down my selection to 2 majors:

Computer Science

Electrical Engineering

I love programming and I want to do it but I think I want to do embedded systems. If any of you anons are Electrical Engineers or people who majored in Computer Science what do you think I should go to.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.11861813]

do lim(x->inf) (1+2/x)^x

[Anonymous No.11861955]

>>11861811
I'm a CS major and I've really enjoyed the curriculum. Depends on your school's program, though.

[Anonymous No.11861962]

>>11861811
Embedded stuff is only upper division and grad school in CS. IDK about EE.

[Anonymous No.11861986]

>>11861955
Have you done anything related to hardware, anything embedded? Would you recommend CS as a major?

[Anonymous No.11861993]

EE major and CS minor
You get to be an engineer while still getting a good background in software and theory

do it faggot

[Anonymous No.11862121]

>>11861986
I'm not the guy you posed the question to, but at my university we dumped the hardware class last year. It got replaced by a class called "Computer Architecture and Organization". It's essentially all assembly level coding and working with registers, along with control flow of instructions in a processor. Fucking tough class because it was the first time it was ever taught. I hated it at first but ended up loving it at the end. I think out of 80 students who took it that semester, like 65 failed the first exam.

[Anonymous No.11862129]

>>11861811

[Anonymous No.11862160]

>>11861811
If you like maths and "autism" choose CS
If you like physics and calculating shit then choose EE

I'm learning CS in an "applied sciences" uni and while we did some embedded systems shit it all was pretty basic stuff. Don't expect to learn many details or anything about low level electric engineering if you choose CS. In EE on the other hand you won't do much programming and will do lots of physics.

[Anonymous No.11862171]

>>11862129
>PDE's for engineers
>complex variables
>numerical analysis
>EM for engineers
Jesus christ Engis are so oblivious to how babied they are.

[Anonymous No.11862185]

>>11862129
The CE stuff on that list is more similar to our CS bachelors here in Germany than those CS courses

[Anonymous No.11862198]

>>11861811
CS is iffy - at a good program, they tend to be really really good with strong basics in fundamentals and problem solving, and their proof classes are actually pretty good. They'll teach you a lot, and it'll be up to you to choose your concentration and avoid some of the more buzzword bullshit, but this shouldn't be hard.

At a bad or mediocre CS program, they do the bare minimum for math and science, and they focus most of their courses towards the practice of writing software. This is bad since your experience writing software should come from school projects, personal work, and internships, but the class environment itself is too sanitized to actually teach you these nontrivial skills. Instead, what they should be focusing on is the abstract problem solving and mathematics that actually do show up on whiteboard interviews and high tier positions (cryptography, HPC, real time, etc.)

You can partially de-memeify a bad CS program with a double major in math, but this is only if you're interested in the theory of CS. Furthermore, at a good school Math+CS at a good school is a ridiculously powerful combination that can go basically anywhere they please industrially or academically.

On the other hand, EE is good mostly everywhere but ABET makes it so you learn a lot of material without being able to specialize towards a track until late into your career. Since you're a generalist, you'll have harder times in interviews, but EE's can go far because their program is tiered to be able to do many different jobs across many different fields.

If you like embedded, EE is a safe bet, but you can do it with a CS degree and relevant experience as well. Whatever you do, research your undergrad program and see if they match your aptitude. Sorry for the reddit spacing - I just wanted to spread out my thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11862218]

>>11862129
>he leaves out all the bullshit for ABET
>he adds in linear even though many schools don’t have it in ECE because it isn’t ABET
>he thinks a good intro “discrete math” class would involve coding theory and information theory without watering it down
> <calculation math class> for engineers
>loading 13 electives into the 4th year + capstone full of classes in math and CS departments mainly, not CE
CS has some seriously problems housing brainlets in the US, but fuck this is just implausible circlejerk bullshit.
More than half of this isn’t even CS proper. The meme of “local CE takes compilers and baby algorithms and now thinks he knows CS” is real lmao.

[Anonymous No.11862219]

>>11862129
The fact that the CE/EE curriculum doesn’t have the first 2 years booked full of labs tips you off that this schedule is horseshit.

[Anonymous No.11862261]

>>11861962
My school taught embedded and vlsi at junior and senior level.

[Anonymous No.11862262]

>>11861813
Trivial.

[Anonymous No.11862732]

>>11861811
Go for EE. There's a lot more to embedded systems than software, and the CS programs that I'm familiar with don't place enough emphasis on the hardware portion of embedded devices. If worse comes to worse and you end up hating working in the engineering field, you can always get a CS orientated job. Quite a few companies prefer EE grads over CS grads for software engineering and/or programming jobs. You might have to pick up a few programming languages not typically taught in engineering courses, but that's about the worst of it. Hope that helps anon.
>t. EE who works with embedded systems

[Anonymous No.11862735]

>>11861811
Moving from electrical to a compsci job is easier than moving from a compsci job to electrical
Take it from someone who did compsci but likes electronics more (and realized late).

[Anonymous No.11862741]

>>11861811
Redpill me on EECS? Is it red pilled? UC Berkeley offers it so does MIT but Caltech/Stanford do not.

[Anonymous No.11862750]

>>11862741
If you get into a Berkeley or MIT tier college, EECS is worth it. Otherwise, just choose between EE and CS.

[Anonymous No.11862753]

>>11862750
I got into Berkeley for engineering undeclared but I want to transfer into EECS. Apparently recent grads got offers for 300k out of college. Plus the H1b exodus means more jobs for moi.

[Anonymous No.11862759]

>>11862732
>Quite a few companies prefer EE grads over CS grads for software engineering and/or programming jobs.
Ehhhh not exactly. EE's can get past the resume survey but oftentimes they're not given preference, especially because they tend to fail the whiteboard interviews.
EE's and CE's like to boil down CS (and a lot of other interviews / work) to knowledge acquisition which is why many of them struggle with the standard
>write a nontrivial algorithm for a nontrivial problem you haven't studied before
>uhhhhh use A* right?
at the later stages of of the interview process.
I do agree with you that EE is better for embedded though - CS undergrads can get in with more experience, but it's tougher

[Anonymous No.11862761]

>>11862753
EECS programs tend to be really good, go for it anon.

[Anonymous No.11862766]

>>11862735
the issue is that software jobs, despite being open to mostly recent CS grads, are not really "CS jobs"
software jobs are by their nature open to most people, and the best are open to any talented stem students period. Most of the training happens on site over the course of many months.
You can do electronics starting in CS, but it's definitely harder to break into than doing EE since the EE major exists to fill those jobs specifically. If you really care about electronics, you can inch your way from low level to embedded to electronics, though you will likely have to pick up a masters on the way from your workplace, or target a company / employer that has classes you can take in the subject

[Anonymous No.11863563]

>>11861811
Not OP but wanted to know if this is a good CS program. The major is called mathematics and computer science.

[Anonymous No.11863582]

>>11863563
>mathematics and computer science
>mathematics
Where's the real and complex analysis? General and baby algebraic topology? Differential fucking equations??? And I know that linear algebra course isn't real linear algebra.
>"applied" abstract algebra
What a fucking joke.
>A whole sequence on fucking foundations and logic
What a fucking joke!
Take mathematics out of the degree name. What a disgrace.

[Anonymous No.11863608]

>>11862198
lmao this is so wrong.. for the CS part.

Most or if not any school will have your majors centered around the structure of your course for Computer Science, not comp sci being the major.

Secondly, when you apply for jobs, you go for the job you want, i.e cyber security, network administrator, scrum master, software engineer, systems administrator, embedded etc... when picking these jobs the requirement at bare minimum is to have a degree.. not once will they ask you questions on how well you know math unless the job is for mathematics. At most, questions will be centered around solving minimal software problems for software related jobs.

Engineering I imagine is different.. but I know CS.

[Anonymous No.11863611]

>>11863582
Some programs that are named this are pretty bad, while if I recall correctly, Oxford’s “mathematics and computer science” major has proper requirements from both departments.

At this point, just double major in both. I did that and got to the honors / grad classes by junior year in both subjects. It’s a lot easier to get REUs in ML theory when your analytic and computational background is much stronger than the competition

[Anonymous No.11863615]

>>11862750
what about UIUC?

[Anonymous No.11863618]

>>11863608
I mean, what you described is the bullshit the post was calling out - most of these jobs are not dependent on course material or even major background, which lends credence to >>11862766
good CS grads have the background to pass the really good whiteboard interviews, which are directly related to their school material. But the majority of entry level software jobs won’t use your degree because they’re bad.

CS programs should still focus on problem solving, not software experience. Get that on your own time and on internships
>I know CS
Not if you navigate most “CS jobs” to not have math. Most software jobs are not CS jobs.

[Anonymous No.11863635]

>>11863582
>Where's the real and complex analysis?
I was planning on taking that for two addition math courses
>General and baby algebraic topology
That is not there.
>Differential fucking equations
Are differential equations useful for computer science?
>And I know that linear algebra course isn't real linear algebra.
It's the same proof based liner algebra the math majors take so try again.
>>"applied" abstract algebra
>What a fucking joke.
Why is it a joke?
>>A whole sequence on fucking foundations and logic
>What a fucking joke!
Why is this a joke?
>Take mathematics out of the degree name. What a disgrace.
It's suppose to be a computer science degree for people who want more math, that's why math is in the name.

[Anonymous No.11863636]

>>11863618
I've been a software developer for two different large organizations. Both departments an on-site mathematician for consultation. The programming I did in my degree course did not make me a professional by any means, but it certainly gave me the foundation to ace 6 month training in the first organization, and move from there into a position fast then those also in the same training. I got that purely from my course in CS.

The most math I needed was the basic discrete, I have not once had to deal with any proofs, or as such. If you said cryptography I would agree with you, from my experience I can't agree with you. Half if not all the maths outside of discrete, including calc 2, statistical decision making, linear algebra) was useless to be honest and I wish leaving uni I had more projects on my github from units because I don't remember much from those units other then how to recall the names of methods to solve problems...

[Anonymous No.11865205]

>>11861811
If you are dead set on embedded then EE is the way to go--embedded requires an understanding of hardware that CS can't provide. If your school offers Computer Engineering as a major, that would be a great option as well.
/sci/ likes to shit on CS, and while programs differ in quality greatly between universities, if you like software development and programming and aren't dead set on embedded then its a degree that gives a lot of options and gets you high paying jobs.

[Anonymous No.11866137]

>>11861811
Getting an EE degree did not improve my job prospects

[Anonymous No.11866402]

>>11863618
What do real CS jobs look like except research/ Academia?

Protip: There are virtually none. Nobody needs a CS genius to create a new compiler/ formal language/ operating system / new encryption standard.

[Anonymous No.11866447]

>>11861986
My University does. We take Assembly , Hardware Software interfaces , Computer Organization and Design, Computer Networks and there are other optional electives. They use to have computer engineering electives like NAND to tetris but they dropped the physics requirements from the degree so they don't teach them anymore because most of the students wouldn't have the prerequisites. The only computer engineering courses we take now are computer architecture and logic design.


If you want to do embedded I think electrical engineering is the better degree it's more versatile. Computer Engineering would be even better. You can apply for any software or embedded job you want with a computer engineering degree. I wish I had because I prefer embedded too.

[Anonymous No.11866470]

>>11862759
Computer Engineering varies by school. Sometimes they have to take a lot of programming classes.

[Anonymous No.11866479]

>>11866402
>virtually none
Lmao no, there are plenty, but most people in CS undergrad want a degree to make money. There has been plenty of work and open problems for the actual computer scientist to work on. You’re still attributing software dev work to them, when their contributions in industry are seen from the work from national labs and papers.

[Anonymous No.11866487]

>>11866402
Leslie Lamport is a computer scientist whose work has had immediate impact.
Lots of Bell Labs staff have done work like this.
Just because the majority of work in industry is droning codemonkeying doesn’t mean there are real problems to be solved

[Anonymous No.11867273]

>>11863615

UIUC does not offer a formal EECS program. Closest you'll get is ECE, and everyone I knew in that program wanted to fucking off themselves.

[Anonymous No.11867325]

>>11862741
Berkeley and MIT EECS are top tier. Went to one of the two myself. Programs are both very rigorous.

If you're engineering undeclared you can declare EECS relatively easily as well.

[Anonymous No.11867332]

Isn't Computer Engineering a perfect choice? The best of both worlds?

[Anonymous No.11868775]

>>11866487
Bell Labs?
Leslie Lamport?
What are you, a 60 year old boomer?

The days of bell labs and PARC are long gone because the pace of technological innovation is so much that even working on technology that they worked on is now out of reach of everyone but the only the brightest of minds, and requires tremendous amounts of knowledge to understand.

>Just because the majority of work in industry is droning codemonkeying doesn’t mean there are real problems to be solved

Tell me 3 'real' problems off the top of your head. Go on.

>>11866479
Your last line is exactly my point. To work in actual 'CS' which could be thought of as applied discrete maths is open only to a very very small number of people.
Don't expect 98% of the people getting CS degrees to work here, or even want to work there.

[Anonymous No.11868982]

>>11867332
Not really. You don't learn much CS aside from intro alg / data structures and compilers. The rest is EE focused on computer hardware like microprocessors, VLSI, etc

[Anonymous No.11869098]

>>11861811
I'm neither a CS or EE fag, but I work with marine robotics and, therefore, I have contact with both programming and embedded systems, besides all the electrical engies and computer scientists that work alongside me.

First of all, I must warn you that CS is NOT programming, although you may already be aware of that. Programming is an essential part of CS, but any non-meme CS programme will not limit itself to software development and coding. CS programmes usually include lots of math, abstraction, theory, modelling, and things that go beyond just programming.

On the other hand, most, if not all STEM programmes include programming in some way or another. Even if you chose to be a physicist, a chemist or a mechanical engineer, you'd still have contact with programming. So if your deal is just coding, and not all the theoretical stuff behind CS, you don't have to do CS at all.

I'm particularly fond of embedded systems. I think you can achieve a good balance of disciplines when working with them. Depending on what kind of embedded system you're designing, you might even have some contact with mechanical, aerospace or ocean engineering stuff. Designing electronic circuits is a very enjoyable activity, too.